<HTML>Sandy,
I must COMPLETELY disagree with you on your points about Frank.
There is such a thing as courtesy, but Ms. Morris' continual denial and inability to explain simple facts have frustrated both Frank and myself to the point where we start yelling those simple questions, and ask for simple answers.
And we keep getting bogus references and irrelevant data.
And then, without any regard to the main "Theory Killer" questions, she goes back and produces pages and pages and pages of unrelated information that addresses minor objections from other posts.
Margaret may be IMMINENTLY more polite than Frank or myself, but it appears to be the courtesy of a cover-up. She comes off as a placid politician who, when faced with a difficult human rights question, changes to budget talks.
This is rather frustrating to those of us who just want simple answers to simple questions.
Her "microscopic" evidence is about as convincing as the people who come up with all the Pyramid Numbers to show how one inch represents one year and the Grand Gallery is a representation of human history and if you square the hypotenuse of the inside wall of the niche in the Queen's Chamber you will get the distance from Alpha Centauri to the nearest McDonalds.
They are having to rely on microscopic evidence, (which some experts declare SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST), in order to bolster up a theory that, for all intents and purposes, is utter nonsense. Every time she goes into zeolites and boundwater, it's like the Wizard of Oz reaching into his little magic bag and pulling out another heart for the Tinman. It doesn't really provide him with a heart... he just THINKS its evidence for a heart, because it came from the Wizard, and its what he WANTS to hear. This evidence is not evidence at all... its a distraction from the actual evidence which completely disproves the theory.
I'm not insulting or knocking Ms. Morris in any way here. This is MY impression of her posts and the information provided. If I'm wrong in my impression, it's up to HER to change it.
Take the dissolving limestone, for example. If this limestone is SO easy to dissolve in water, then I really have a hard time believing the pyramid is still standing. It seems that 4000 years of torrential rainstorms -- strong enough to massively erode the Sphinx -- would have laid waist to the straight angles of the Pyramid. Yet, there's NOTHING. Now, if it needs to be pulverized, as Frank has suggested, then that would explain why it holds up. Yet, Ms. Morris can not explain how they pulverized the limestone without pulverizing the shells.
Oops.
Big, Giant, HUGE gaping hole in the logic. Simple, (and as of right now) irrefutable evidence that the geopolymer theory is hogwash, and needs to be dismissed completely, utterly, and entirely from reasonable discussions by reasonable people about pyramid construction technology.
When you're busted, you're busted. Throw the theory out and get a new one. Unless you're emotionally attached to the theory... which is the BIGGEST faux pas one can make in science.
And I believe that is the ACTUAL case here.
Remember, Davidovits is in the business of manufacturing artificial stone... he owns a company called "Geopolymer, Inc"... and if he had to announce that his basic tennet about the pyramid building was utter, total and complete BUNK, it would be a pretty nasty public relations NIGHTMARE for his company.
If I were giving scores for "likelihood of validity", I'd say my theory for WHY Ms. Morris keeps playing "dodge and weave" is a heckuva lot more plausible than the geopolymer theory for pyramid construction.
Remember, Occam's razor can only be applied with WORKING theories. Geopolymers are not even allowed into the equation, because people like Frank have shown it to be a NON-WORKING hypothesis.
Apologies to Ms. Morris if the things I have pointed out have sound, rational explanations that she can show to us easily, but HER choice for responding to these questions has done NOTHING to help her case.
I suggest she change her style, or get a new client with demonstrable theories.
Sincerely,
Anthony Sakovich</HTML>
